Americas

United States

  • China
    Objectives and Future Direction for Rebalance Economic Policies
      (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters) In testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Elizabeth Economy discussed the economic components of the “rebalance to Asia” and its prospects going forward. She recommended that the U.S. Congress ratify TPP, continue to support the Ex-Im Bank, and increase support for NGO operations across the Asia-Pacific in fields such as legal education and anti-corruption that help promote good economic governance. She also called for greater coordination between commercial diplomacy and strategic economic plans and greater support for the proposed U.S. New Silk Road initiative. Takeaways: Above all, the U.S. Congress should ratify the TPP. It is the economic heart of the rebalance and its realization is critical to the credibility of the United States in the region. If not underway already, the USTR should initiate dialogues with other nations interested in joining the TPP, such as the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, and China. The next administration should make the realization of a BIT with China a top priority. As the European Union moves forward with its own China BIT negotiations, the United States should coordinate its positions to the extent possible. The BIT provides the United States with the best opportunity to achieve a level playing field with China through greater access to the Chinese market for U.S. financial services, national treatment for U.S. investors, reduced caps on foreign ownership, increased transparency, relaxed controls on repatriated profits, enhanced cross-border data flows, and the elimination of policies such as enforced technology transfer and forced localization of production.[1] The United States should develop a strategic plan for how it wants to participate in the next stage of Asia’s economic development. It could, for example, target three or four particular areas of infrastructure development, such as transportation, clean energy, agriculture, and telecommunications, and focus the energy of U.S. agencies around those issues. Without such strategic guidance, U.S. trade and investment efforts will suffer in Asia’s highly competitive economic environment, particularly in the face of China’s, and even Japan’s, strategic economic planning. Congress should ensure continued and unwavering support for the Ex-Im Bank. The political gamesmanship surrounding the Bank is detrimental to the interests of thousands of U.S. companies. In order for U.S. firms to be competitive with those of other countries, particularly those from countries such as China that receive strong state support for their commercial activities abroad, export finance is essential. The White House should more closely integrate U.S. commercial diplomacy with the region’s strategic economic plans.  The Asia Pacific has significant infrastructure needs in agriculture, information and telecommunications, and energy. Targeted delegations as part of presidential summits in these particular arenas would be particularly beneficial for boosting the visibility and impact of U.S. firms.[2] The Obama administration should breathe life into dormant initiatives. The U.S. New Silk Road, which engages Central and South Asia, was announced in 2011 with four main areas of focus: regional energy markets, trade and transport, customs and border operations, and business. To date, the United States has invested roughly $1.7 billion in developing energy and transportation infrastructure, primarily in Afghanistan. Additional projects are progressing slowly. If greater support is not provided, the initiative will cost the United States its credibility, particularly in light of the far more robust Chinese One Belt, One Road initiative, and the deep engagement of both China and Russia in the region. Opportunities to cooperate and partner in the region with others such as Japan or the European Union should also be explored. Congress should increase funding for NGO work throughout the Asia Pacific that contributes to strengthen good economic governance. The United States devotes roughly 4 percent of its global aid spending to Asia, a very small amount given the population of region.[3] Support for organizations such as the Asia Foundation,[4] the National Endowment for Democracy, and the International Republican Institute should be increased. These organizations help nascent and emerging democracies establish the foundations of governance for open and well-functioning markets. The Asia Foundation, for example, supports a program in the Philippines to improve the effectiveness of the judicial system, has worked with Mongolia to improve transparency and accountability in the country’s anti-corruption effort, and has supported legal education for Indonesia’s top law schools. [1]Dan O’Flaherty, “The U.S.-China BIT Debate,” Investment Policy Central, 2012, http://www.investmentpolicycentral.com/content/us-china-bit-debate. [2] Lucio Blanco Pitlo III, “US-ASEAN Summit: Is the US Catching up with China,” China-US Focus, March 9, 2016, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/us-asean-summit-is-the-us-catching-up-with-china/. [3] Joshua Kurlantzick, “The Pivot in Southeast Asia: Balancing Interests and Values,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 2015, http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/pivot-southeast-asia-balancing-interests-values/p35925. [4] I have served a board member of the Asia Foundation since 2014.  
  • China
    Prevent the Destruction of Scarborough Shoal
    Captain Sean R. Liedman currently serves as the U.S. Navy Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.  Previously, he was the commander of Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing Eleven operating the P-8A and P-3C maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. He has twice served in the Air Warfare Division on the Chief of Naval Operation’s staff and also as the executive assistant to the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command.  The conclusions and opinions expressed are his own and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. government. Reuters reported on March 19 that the U.S. Navy had observed Chinese maritime survey activities around Scarborough Shoal that may be a precursor to reclamation activities similar to those executed by China on seven other maritime features in the Spratly Islands located more than three hundred and fifty nautical miles to the south. The U.S. response to China’s island building campaign in the Spratlys has been confined to calls to “halt the expansion and the militarization of occupied features” and maritime and aerial freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) to preserve freedom of access to the high seas and international airspace. However, the case of Scarborough Shoal is different as an arbitration case remains ongoing, and the United States and its allies and partners in the region should be prepared to use a broader range of the tools of statecraft to prevent similar ecological destruction and occupation of Scarborough Shoal by the Chinese. On the heels of the Chinese seizure of Mischief Reef in the Spratlys in 1995, a U.S. State Department press briefing outlined the elements of a South China Sea policy that remains in place today. The briefing stated that the United States: “strongly opposes the use or threat of force to resolve competing claims and urges all claimants to exercise restraint and to avoid destabilizing actions,” “has an abiding interest in the maintenance of peace and stability in the South China Sea,” has “a fundamental interest” in maintaining freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, “takes no position on the legal merits of the competing claims to sovereignty over the various islands, reefs, atolls, and cays in the South China Sea” and, …would “view with serious concern any maritime claim or restriction on maritime activity in the South China Sea that was not consistent with international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).” Therein lies the policy conundrum for the United States; while it continues to assert that it takes no position on the legal merits of any of the multitude of sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, it also opposes the use or threat of force to resolve competing claims and any restrictions on maritime activity that are not consistent with UNCLOS. The Chinese seized Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines in June 2012 in a strategic move that the Wall Street Journal labeled “Putinesque.” China employed a hybrid strategy of diplomatic ruse backed up by paramilitary forces that included the use of fishing vessels, China Marine Surveillance vessels, and People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) vessels to coerce the Filipinos into departing the waters surrounding Scarborough Shoal. The Chinese have exerted de facto sovereign control over Scarborough Shoal ever since through the constant presence of China Marine Surveillance vessels that have resorted to ramming and using water cannons to eject any non-Chinese registered fishing vessels from the area. While no shots have been fired, Chinese behavior during the seizure and subsequent patrolling of Scarborough Shoal clearly violated the first and fifth U.S. policy principles listed above. In 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitral proceedings at the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague to request rulings on fifteen submissions regarding UNCLOS disputes in the South China Sea. The PCA ruled in October 2015 that it has jurisdiction over seven of the fifteen submissions, including three key submissions regarding Scarborough Shoal: “China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal”; “China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal”; “China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal”; A PCA ruling is expected on those three submissions sometime during the summer of 2016. Allowing China to dredge, reclaim, and occupy Scarborough Shoal prior to the PCA ruling would completely undermine the first, second, and fifth policy principles outlined above and the broader U.S. principles of adherence to the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of disputes through international mechanisms. In December 2014, China stated its policy position of “three no’s” in regards to the Philippines’ PCA filing: no acceptance of the filing, no participation in the proceedings, and no implementation of any findings. However, the PCA found that China’s non-participation does not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction in accordance with Article 9 of Annex VII to UNCLOS which provides that: “Absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings.” Finally, Scarborough Shoal has not been developed or reclaimed to date and remains a pristine part of the South China Sea ecosystem. China’s reclamation activities on the seven maritime features in the Spratlys have been labeled the “quickest rate of permanent loss of coral reef area in human history” with widespread environmental damage that is “irrecoverable and irreplaceable.” What is at stake at Scarborough Shoal is not simply preservation of an important regional ecosystem; the ecological destruction of Scarborough Shoal would constitute a gross violation of Article 145 of UNCLOS, which addresses the protection and conservation of the marine environment, and would further enable bad behavior around the globe with regard to international marine environmental protection law. To date, the Chinese have incurred little strategic cost from their reclamation and occupation campaign in the South China Sea as the United States has sought to secure and preserve Chinese cooperation on broader strategic interests such as climate change, the desired denuclearization of Iran and North Korea, cyber theft, and fair trade and monetary policies. It is now time for the United States and regional allies like Japan, Australia, and South Korea to accept more friction in their relationship with China and raise the cost/risk calculus for further Chinese expansion and occupation in the South China Sea, including Scarborough Shoal. A strategy to prevent reclamation activities on Scarborough Shoal should begin with public diplomacy pronouncements that the United States will not permit the wanton destruction of Scarborough Shoal, backed up by private diplomatic communications that there could be serious consequences such as revoking the invitation for the Chinese to participate in RIMPAC 2016 and other regional security cooperation fora and exercises. If China fails to heed those diplomatic warnings and commences reclamation activities on Scarborough Shoal, there are a variety of non-lethal, covert means that the United States and its allies could utilize to disable the dredgers that the Chinese have employed in the Spratlys, including fouling the “cutter suction” mechanism or disrupting the continuity of the “floating sediment pipe” that delivers the dredged ocean bottom and coral fragments ashore. Failing to prevent the destruction and Chinese occupation of Scarborough Shoal would generate further irreversible environmental damage in the South China Sea – and more importantly, further irreversible damage to the principles of international law. Finally, it would further consolidate the Chinese annexation and occupation of the maritime features in the South China Sea, which would be essentially irreversible in any scenario short of a major regional conflict.
  • Cuba
    Make Believe About Education in Cuba
    "Cuba has an extraordinary resource – a system of education which values every boy and every girl." This is a remarkable statement to make about a communist dictatorship. It is disturbing and disappointing to find it coming from a high official of the Obama administration--Valerie Jarrett. Does Castro’s Cuba value every boy and girl who wants freedom and wishes to denounce the one-party dictatorship? Does it value every boy and girl whose parents are political prisoners? Does it value every boy and girl who wants to read freely about liberty and democracy, not just the Marxist clap-trap prescribed by the Party? As a Brookings Institution study of education in post-Communist societies put it, Communist societies such as Cuba consider ideas weapons in the class struggle. They stress the function of education in facilitating political indoctrination of the population.... Countries such as Cuba have had total command of education and have used it to indoctrinate children in schools. The system also controls mass media by creating a monopoly on the information and interpretations Cubans use to make sense of their social world. The Castro regime has indeed invested heavily in the educational system, and that is perhaps what Ms. Jarrett meant to communicate. But that is not what she tweeted. Instead her words suggest blindness to what is taught in those schools. Surely closing minds, surely Party indoctrination, do not "value" the children of Cuba--except, as the Brookings study put it, as "weapons in the class struggle."
  • United States
    Guest Post: Mounting Pressure Threatens Stability in Jordan
    Tina Huang is an intern in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. As the Syrian civil war continues at lower levels of violence, neighboring countries face enduring security threats and international pressures to protect refugees pouring across their borders. In a new Center for Preventive Action (CPA) Contingency Planning Memorandum Update, “Growing Stress on Jordan,” Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and David Schenker, director of the Program on Arab Politics at WINEP, discuss the implications of Jordan reaching its “saturation point” for accepting Syrian refugees. Satloff and Schenker state that the risk of domestic unrest stemming from economic privatization, corruption, and a lack of reform—which was the focus on their 2013 report, “Political Instability in Jordan”—has since diminished, while spillover from the Syrian civil war is an increasing threat. They offer policy recommendations for how the U.S. government can support its partner in the Middle East. The burden of hosting 1.5 million Syrian refugees consumed 17.5 percent of Jordan’s $11.7 billion budget in 2015, contributing to the country’s $2 billion deficit. Since 2011, support for Syrian refugees has cost Jordan nearly $6.6 billion in total. A growing concern for Jordan is security, explain the authors, as there are indications that some refugees are influenced by the self-proclaimed Islamic State and domestic terrorism is on the rise. This has placed additional pressure on an already stressed political system. For example, Jordan’s unemployment rate stands at 12 percent, with nearly 30 percent of its youth looking for jobs. A growing refugee population could exacerbate competition for sparse jobs and intensify existing social tensions. The authors warn that the continued inflow of refugees could “tip the scales,” and conceivably lead to the collapse of King Abdullah’s regime if it is unable to maintain security while supporting the growing displaced Syrian population. Maintaining stability in Jordan is vital to U.S. interests given the country’s commitment to a peaceful solution in Israel, partnership in combating the self-proclaimed Islamic State, cooperation with pro-West strategic orientation, and confrontation of Iranian expansionism. Satloff and Schenker provide several policy recommendations for the U.S. government to protect political stability in Jordan. • Increasing humanitarian assistance by reconsidering its allocation of its $533 million dedicated to refugee support and encouraging European and Arab allies to also invest in Jordan. • Supporting employment opportunities for Syrian refugees by pressing European countries, primarily Germany, to invest in job creation within Jordan. • Increasing defense and intelligence cooperation by equipping Jordan with advanced armed-and-surveillance-drone capability. • Establishing a real safe zone where U.S.-led coalition forces will provide security, shelter, and food to displaced Syrians. To learn more about Satloff and Schenker’s analysis and policy recommendations, read the report, “Growing Stress on Jordan.”
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Repression Deepens in Egypt
    Repression in Egypt keeps getting worse and worse.  It has become so noticeable that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid of Jordan, actually spoke about it--something that doesn’t happen every day. Here is how his statement began: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on Wednesday expressed grave concern over the closure of hundreds of civil society organizations in Egypt and the prosecutions of numerous human rights defenders for their legitimate work since November 2014. “This looks like a clampdown on sections of Egyptian civil society and it must stop,” said Zeid. “NGOs who have played a valuable role in documenting violations and supporting victims will see their activities completely crippled if this continues. This will stifle the voices of those who advocate for victims.” I am a member of the non-partisan Working Group on Egypt, which has just written to President Obama  about the broader phenomenon of repression in Egypt. Our letter can be found here but I copy the text below. As we noted, "President al-Sisi’s campaign against civil society takes place against the backdrop of unprecedented abuses by Egyptian security forces, including extrajudicial killings, the detention of tens of thousands of political prisoners, the widespread documented use of torture, and the forced disappearances of hundreds of Egyptians. The killing of Italian student Giulio Regeni, whose tortured body appeared on a roadside near Cairo a week after his abduction in late January, has come to international attention, but many Egyptians have shared his fate since President al-Sisi came to power." Egypt is an important country and it is faced with terrorist threats to the west, in the Western Desert and Libya, and in Sinai. There will be arguments that realpolitik demands that we back President Sisi and simply remain quiet about human rights violations. But I believe that’s exactly wrong. Realism demands that we speak out for two reasons. First, the people Sisi is repressing are especially the democrats, liberals, secular citizens, and moderates--the very base for future progress for the society. It is simply untrue that the repression is only targeting Muslim Brotherhood members, jihadis, extremists, and terrorists. Second, what Sisi is doing will not work. The combination of corruption, lack of economic progress, and repression means that Egypt will remain unstable. For example, Sisi has made no gains against jihadis in the Sinai, in part because of the government’s conduct there, and ISIS appears to be stronger there now than it was a couple of years ago. Filling the prisons with everyone who speaks out against repression or who criticizes the government will not stop ISIS. In essence the United States is back where we began, supporting a repressive regime in the supposed interest of stability. That’s what we did with Mubarak, for the most part, until almost the day he fell. The only differences are that Sisi is more repressive than Mubarak, and that because of ISIS the stakes are higher today. Thus our letter to the President. ================================================================ March 23, 2016 The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, We are writing to urge you to speak directly with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and to express both publicly and privately your objection to his accelerating crackdown on human rights, including recent moves to prosecute civil society organizations. You were correct to declare in September 2014 that “America’s support for civil society is a matter of national security,” and nowhere is that more true than in Egypt today. President al-Sisi’s campaign against civil society takes place against the backdrop of unprecedented abuses by Egyptian security forces, including extrajudicial killings, the detention of tens of thousands of political prisoners, the widespread documented use of torture, and the forced disappearances of hundreds of Egyptians. The killing of Italian student Giulio Regeni, whose tortured body appeared on a roadside near Cairo a week after his abduction in late January, has come to international attention, but many Egyptians have shared his fate since President al-Sisi came to power. On March 24, an Egyptian court will hear a request to freeze the bank accounts and other assets of two internationally-respected human rights defenders, Hossam Bahgat and Gamal Eid, along with members of Eid’s family. Mr. Bahgat and Mr. Eid and other activists may soon be indicted and face trial for illegally accepting foreign funding – a criminal charge that violates their right to free association and could carry a sentence of up to 25 years in prison. The imminent proceedings are a major step in Egyptian authorities’ campaign to crush the last remnants of Egypt’s independent civil society and human rights community. Egypt’s media has recently reported that dozens of organizations are under criminal investigation, essentially for their peaceful work to monitor abuses and to hold Egypt’s government accountable to its own constitution and international human rights commitments. In recent weeks, Egyptian authorities have ordered the closure of a prominent anti-torture organization, the Nadeem Center; summoned staff from several human rights organizations for interrogation; banned prominent rights activists and advocates from traveling outside Egypt in violation of the Egyptian constitution; and harassed and threatened human rights activists with arrest and violence. The media regularly propagate vitriol against human rights defenders, portraying them as traitors and security threats. If this crackdown is allowed to reach its conclusion, it will silence an indigenous human rights community that has survived more than 30 years of authoritarian rule, leaving few if any Egyptians free to investigate mounting abuses by the state. The current attacks on Egypt’s rights advocates are a continuation of the same criminal prosecution of American and German NGO workers in Egypt that began in 2011. That prosecution, driven by senior members of the Egyptian government still in high office today, resulted in the June 2013 criminal convictions, in a deeply flawed trial, of 43 Egyptian and international NGO staff, including 17 American citizens. President al-Sisi, who was the head of military intelligence in 2011 when Egypt’s military government launched the investigation, has refused repeated requests to overturn the convictions. While the current crackdown is primarily targeting domestic organizations, there are indications that international NGOs may also face increased pressure, including some that currently do not even have offices or staff working in Egypt. On March 20, the newspaper Al Masry Al Youm published the names of more than 150 individuals and civil society organizations reportedly under investigation for receiving foreign funding, including prominent American and European organizations such as the Center for International Private Enterprise, the Solidarity Center, Transparency International, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services, CARE, AMIDEAST, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute. Mr. President, in your September 2014 Presidential Memorandum on Civil Society, you pledged that the United States government – including you personally – would stand firmly with those in civil society facing pressure or harassment from their governments. While the past five years have been tumultuous and challenging for US policy toward Egypt, this is another defining moment for the United States, a moment that tests your pledge to “stand with civil society.” Secretary Kerry’s March 18 statement of concern was welcome, but further action is urgently needed. Past practice demonstrates that when the United States government speaks clearly, in one voice, and consistently on NGO freedom and human rights in Egypt, the government in Cairo listens. It is essential that you act to stand up for human rights, freedom of association, and the rights of both Egyptian and international civil society organizations to work together on behalf of common goals. You must make crystal clear to President al-Sisi that continued assaults on civil society, including harassment of US organizations, will make it difficult for the administration to cooperate across a range of issues, including your administration’s efforts to promote American investment in Egypt and to provide financial assistance to the Egyptian government and military. If Egypt’s government continues down a path to destroy its own civil society, American support and assistance will become, in both principled and practical terms, impossible. Sincerely, The Working Group on Egypt
  • China
    Podcast: The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Who’s on Top?
    Podcast
    The superiority of the American military relative to that of any other country in the Asia Pacific has long been a defining feature of the region’s security landscape. Yet, as China continues to invest heavily in its military while U.S. investment contracts, America’s relative advantage is diminishing. What would happen if the United States and China came into conflict over Taiwan or the Spratly Islands? What is the relative likelihood that China would unleash a cyberattack on infrastructure targets in the United States? Listen in as Dr. Eric Heginbotham, principal research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies, shares the findings from his excellent new book, The U.S.-China Military Scorecard, and lays out the relative strengths of each side, his predictions for the ultimate outcomes in the event of military encounters between the United States and China, and his thoughts on how the U.S. can best preserve regional stability.
  • Cuba
    Burying Cuba
    President Obama’s speech to the Cuban people today included many nice lines about democracy and human rights. But the ideological content was found in this line, early in the speech: "I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas." If only that were so. The last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas, in the Obama view, is apparently the American embargo of Castro’s Cuba. But I would beg to differ. The last remnant is instead the communist regime that continues to deny freedom to the Cuban people. Toward the end of his speech the President says "The history of the United States and Cuba encompass revolution and conflict; struggle and sacrifice; retribution and, now, reconciliation. It is time, now, for us to leave the past behind." Again, this is a nice phrase, but its content is all wrong. The critical thing about leaving the past behind is not whether the U.S. Interests Section is henceforth called an embassy, or whether cruise ships can soon dock in Cuba. The critical thing would be leaving behind communism: no free elections, no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, a court system subordinate to the Party, an economy whose wealth is all directed toward and controlled by the Party, and all the other elements that make communism loathsome. In the months since the Obama opening to Cuba, the regime has gotten stronger. In exchange for the loosening of all regulations about traveling to and spending money in Cuba, the United States and the people of Cuba have gotten nothing. The regime is led not only by Raul Castro, but by his son and son-in-law, who are obviously preparing a communist-style monarchy: the ruling family stays forever. When Americans stay at a hotel in Cuba, they are giving their money to GAESA, a holding company belonging to the Revolutionary Armed Forces that is run by General Luis Alberto Rodríguez, President Raúl Castro’s son-in-law. American firms investing in Cuba will have the Army and the Castros as their partners. Cuba is not the only country in the hemisphere that is not free, but it is the one being visited and celebrated by Mr. Obama. If only he would truly try to bury the "last remnant of the Cold War" by bringing freedom to Cuba instead of making life easier for its communist regime, that would be cause for celebration. This visit is not.
  • Cuba
    Senator Menendez Speaks About the Obama Visit to Cuba
    On Thursday, Sen. Robert Menendez (D, NJ) delivered a long and heartfelt statement on the floor of the United States Senate about Pres. Obama’s  forthcoming visit to Cuba. The entire text is copied below because the remarks are worthy of note. Sen. Menendez believes, as I do, that this visit will weaken the chances for freedom in Cuba because it is organized around embracing the current regime rather than pressuring it for change. There is no evidence that the president will meet with the key--and incredibly courageous--dissidents who struggle at enormous sacrifice for freedom in Cuba. There is no evidence he even comprehends that most of the economic benefits of his opening to Cuba are accruing to the regime and the armed forces. Menendez notes that “CNN has revealed that the Cuban delegation in the secret talks that began in mid-2013 with U.S. officials in Ottawa, Toronto and Rome, and which led to the December 17th policy announcement, was headed by Colonel Alejandro Castro Espin. Colonel Castro Espin is the 49-year old son of Cuban dictator Raul Castro." Moreover, as the Obama administration loosen the regulations to allow more and more Americans to visit Cuba, who benefits? Menendez reports that "Raul Castro named his son-in-law, General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez Callejas, as head of GAESA, which stands for Grupo de Administracion Empresarial, S.A or translated Business Administrative Group. GAESA is the holding company of Cuba’s Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, Cuba’s military" and owns Cuba’s hotels. It is very clear today that since the Cuba deal was signed last year, human rights abuses in Cuba have worsened. Once upon a time the president promised not to go to Cuba if that happened, but the Castros understood that he did not mean it. This visit is a "legacy" item that was irresistible to Obama. But what a legacy! Read Menendez’s words, which explain at length the terrible legacy of supporting and extending the life of the regime in Cuba. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “I rise in memory of all Cuban dissidents who have given their lives in the hope of Cuba, one day, being free from the yoke of the Castro regime. It is that freedom I had hoped President Obama was referencing when he said: ‘What I’ve said to the Cuban government is – if we’re seeing more progress in the liberty and freedom and possibilities of ordinary Cubans, I’d love to use a visit as a way of highlighting that progress. If we’re going backwards, then there’s not much reason for me to be there.’ “But that is obviously not the case, which is why the Boston Globe’s headline on February 25th says it all: Obama Breaks Pledge – Will Visit Cuba Despite Worsening Human Rights. “Instead of having the free world’s leader honor Latin America’s only dictatorship with a visit, he could have visited one of the 150 countries which he has not visited, including several in Latin America that are democracies. “The President has negotiated a deal with the Castros, and I understand his desire to make this his legacy issue, but there is still a fundamental issue of freedom and democracy at stake that goes to the underlying atmosphere in Cuba and whether or not the Cuban people – still repressed and still imprisoned – will benefit from the President’s legacy, or will it be the Castro Regime that reaps the benefits. “Unless the Castros are compelled to change the way they govern the island and the way they exploit its people, the answer to this won’t be any different: The Castro Regime will be the beneficiary. “At the very least the President’s first stops should be meetings with internationally-recognized dissidents: U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet; the European Union’s Sakharov prize recipients, Guillermo Farinas and Rosa Maria Paya in respect for her murdered father Oswaldo Paya who was leading the Varela Project advocating civil liberties, collecting thousands of signatures petitioning the Castro regime for democratic change as permitted under the Cuban constitution – so threatening was his peaceful petition drive that he was assassinated by Castro’s security agents. “And he should meet with Berta Soler, at her home, in her neighborhood; With the Ladies in White, with dissidents and democracy advocates in Havana – and then that will be the front-page photograph we see next week. Only then will the message that the United States will not give-in or give-up on our commitment to a free and democratic Cuba be clear to the world and to the Cuban people. “To leave a truly honorable mark in history, this would mean the President leaving the Castro’s cordoned-off-tourist-zone and seeing Berta Soler and her Ladies in White at their headquarters in the Lawton neighborhood of Havana, where poverty – Castro style -- not opportunity, not freedom, not democracy – but poverty – created by a Stalinist state, is the umbrella under which they live. “The President should witness their bravery, listen to their stories, feel their despair, see the fear under which they live – and stand-up with them and for them. “He could learn of the story of Aliuska Gomez, one of the Ladies in White who was arrested this past Sunday for marching peacefully. In an article in Diario de Cuba she told her story: ‘We were subjected to a lot of violence today, said Aliuska Gomez. Many of us were dragged and beaten,” she added pointing out that this has taken place only one week before President Obama’s visit. Aliuska…related how she was taken to a police station in Mariano where she was forcibly undressed by several uniformed female officers in plain view of some males. After they had taken away all of my belongings, she said, they told me to strip naked, and I refused so they threw me down on the floor and took off all of my clothing, right in front of two men, and they dragged me completely naked into a jail cell. Aliuska was then handcuffed and thrown on the cell’s floor, naked, and left alone for forty-five minutes.’ "Or how about the young Cuban dissident who met with Ben Rhodes and was arrested in Havana. It was reported on March 14th that ‘yesterday the Castro regime arrested Carlos Amel Oliva, head of the youth wing of the Cuban Patriotic Union, a major dissident organization. He is being accused of anti-social behavior. On Friday, Amel Oliva had participated in a meeting in Miami with Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor. He returned to Havana on Sunday.’ “I guess that’s what Raul Castro thinks about those who meet with the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor. “Notwithstanding their true stories, and the stories of thousands like them, the President first announced sweeping changes to America’s strategic approach to the Castro Regime in December 2014. In broad strokes, we learned of the forthcoming reestablishment of diplomatic relations – an exchange of symbols with the American flag flying over a United States Embassy in Havana and the Cuban flag flying over a Cuban Embassy in Washington. “We learned about the process by which Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism would be lifted; and, we learned about the forthcoming transformative effects of a unilateral easing of sanctions to increase travel, commerce, and currency. “For those of us who understand this regime, we cautioned for nuance, and against those broad strokes. We asked that the Administration at least require the Castros to reciprocate with certain concessions of their own, which would be as good for U.S. national interests as for the Cuban people and for U.S.-Cuban relations. “For example, before the President ever traveled to Burma—a country with notorious human rights abuses and with which this Administration began to engage—the U.S. first demanded, and received action by the Burmese to address their human rights record. To be sure, the Burmese government agreed to meet nearly a dozen benchmarks as part of this “action for action” engagement, including granting the Red Cross access to prisons, establishing a U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Office, release of political prisoners, conclusion of a cease fire in Kachin State, and ensuring international access to conflict areas. “We asked, as the President’s Cuba policy unfolded, that they push for changes that put Cubans in control of their own political processes, economic opportunities, civil society and governance. We didn’t get them. We asked for changes that would honor America’s legacy as a champion for human rights. We didn’t get those either. We suggested changes that would ultimately bring Cuba into the community of nations, contributing to, rather than detracting from, the overall prosperity of the hemisphere. And there were none. “But, most importantly, we asked that they remember that it is a lack of resources – not a change of heart – that slowed the Castros’ adventurism and instability-inducing support for those who would pose threats to our national interests within the Western Hemisphere. “In essence, we were not thinking strategically. Instead, we traded strategy for tactics. And leading Cuban human rights and democracy activists have criticized U.S. policy. “The simple truth is – deals with the Devil require the Devil to deal. Opening channels of communication controlled by the regime means nothing unless we are going to communicate our values. It means nothing if we do not champion the material changes that the Cuban people seek. It means nothing if we do not speak the language that the Castros understand – that the communist revolution has failed miserably, and it’s time to let the Cuban people decide their future. “The Castros know it, but it’s the antiquated hallmark of the revolution and the iron-fisted rule that came from it that keeps them in power. And, until that power is truly challenged, we can expect to witness the further weakening of our leverage. “In the meantime, the regime is already moving forward, already breathing new life into its existing repressive state systems: Cubans are being beaten, arrested, and otherwise muzzled at higher rates than ever before. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights (CCHR) has documented 1,141 political arrests by the Castro regime in Cuba during the short month of February 2016. In January 2016, the CCHR documented 1,447 political arrests. As such, these 2,588 political arrests -- thus far -- represent the highest tally to begin a year in decades. “This is what happens when President Obama first announces he won’t visit Cuba unless there are tangible improvements in the respect for human rights -- then crosses his own ‘red-line.’ And these are only political arrests that have been thoroughly documented. Many more are suspected. “U.S. fugitives and members of foreign terrorist organizations still enjoy safe harbor on the island – like Joanne Chesimard, the convicted killer of New Jersey State Trooper, Werner Foerster – or Charlie Hill who killed New Mexico State Trooper, Robert Rosenbloom. “Not a penny of the $6 billion in outstanding claims by American citizens and businesses for properties confiscated by the Castros has been repaid. Unrelenting censorship and oppression of Cuban journalists continues unscathed; and the Cuban path to liberty doesn’t include the United States Embassy. “So what do we learn? We learn that, despite the Obama Administration’s engagement with the Castro dictatorship and increased travel to the island, repression on the island is exponentially rising. Why? Because the Castro regime, one of the most astute observers of the American political system, is rushing to take advantage of the permissive environment created by the President’s hunger for legacy and the relaxation of restrictions. “M. President, legacy is not more important than lives. For years we’ve heard how an improvement in U.S.-Cuba relations, an easing of sanctions and an increase in travel to the island would benefit the Cuban people. A benefit not realized despite the visits and investments of millions of Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, and South Americans. “These assumptions are wrong. And since December 17, 2014, the President has engaged the Castro regime, offering unilateral concessions that the Castros are more than happy to accept. “And, if that is not enough for us to at least question our Cuba policy, we are now facing a new unfolding Cuban migration crisis. The United States is faced with the largest migration of Cuban immigrants since the rafters of 1994. The number of Cubans entering the United States in 2015 was nearly twice that of 2014, some 51,000; and tens of thousands more are desperately trying to make the journey, via South and Central America. Why would Cubans flee if the promise of a better life in Cuba were on the horizon? When President Obama took office, the numbers were less than 7,000 annually. “We hear that ‘self-employment’ – such as it is in Cuba – is growing. But the number of ‘self-employed’ workers in Cuba has actually decreased. The Cuban government today is licensing 10,000 fewer ‘self-employed’ workers than it did in 2014. In contrast, Castro’s military monopolies are expanding at record pace. Even the limited spaces in which ‘self-employed’ workers previously operated are being squeezed as the Cuban military expands its control of the island’s travel, retail and financial sectors of the economy. “While speaking recently to a business gathering in Washington, D.C., President Obama argued how he believes this new policy is ‘creating the environment in which a generational change and transition will take place in that country.’ But the key questions is, ‘a generational change and transition’ towards what and by whom? Cuban democracy leader, Antonio Rodiles, has concisely expressed this concern – ‘legitimizing the [Castro] regime is the path contrary to a transition.’ “CNN has revealed that the Cuban delegation in the secret talks that began in mid-2013 with U.S. officials in Ottawa, Toronto and Rome, and which led to the December 17th policy announcement, was headed by Colonel Alejandro Castro Espin. Colonel Castro Espin is the 49-year old son of Cuban dictator Raul Castro. “In both face-to-face meetings between President Obama and Raul Castro this year -- first at April’s Summit of the Americas in Panama City and just last month at the United Nations General Assembly in New York -- Alejandro was seated (with a wide grin) next to his father. Alejandro holds the rank of Colonel in Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior, with his hand on the pulse and trigger of the island’s intelligence services and repressive organs. It’s no secret that Raul Castro is grooming Alejandro for a position of power. “Sadly, his role as interlocutor with the Obama Administration seeks to further their goal of an intra-family generational transition within the Castro clan similar to the Assad’s in Syria and the Kim’s in North Korea. And we know how well those have worked out. To give you an idea of how Colonel Alejandro Castro views the United States, he describes its leaders as ‘those who seek to subjugate humanity to satisfy their interests and hegemonic goals.’ “But, of course, it also takes money to run a totalitarian dictatorship, which is why Raul Castro named his son-in-law, General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez Callejas, as head of GAESA, which stands for Grupo de Administracion Empresarial, S.A or translated Business Administrative Group. GAESA is the holding company of Cuba’s Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, Cuba’s military. “It is the dominant driving force of the island’s economy. Established in the 1990s by Raul Castro, it controls tourism companies, ranging from the very profitable Gaviota S.A., which runs Cuba’s hotels, restaurants, car rentals and nightclubs, to TRD Caribe S.A., which runs the island’s retail stores. GAESA controls virtually all economic transactions in Cuba. “According to Hotels Magazine, a leading industry publication, GAESA (through its subsidiaries) is by far the largest regional hotel conglomerate in Latin America. It controls more hotel rooms than The Walt Disney Company. As McLatchy News explained a few years back, ‘Tourists who sleep in some of Cuba’s hotels, drive rental cars, fill up their gas tanks, and even those riding in taxis have something in common: They are contributing to the [Cuban] Revolutionary Armed Forces’ bottom line.’ “GAESA became this business powerhouse thanks to the millions of Canadian and European tourists that have and continue to visit Cuba each year. The Cuban military-owned tourism company, Gaviota Tourism Group, S.A., averaged 12 percent growth in 2015 and expects to double its hotel business this year. “These tourists have done absolutely nothing to promote freedom and democracy in Cuba. To the contrary, they have directly financed a system of control and repression over the Cuban people all while enjoying cigars made by Cuban workers paid in worthless pesos, and having a Cuba Libre, which is an oxymoron, on the beaches of Varadero. “Yet, despite the clear evidence, President Obama wants American tourists to now double GAESA’s bonanza – and, through GAESA, strengthen the regime. “An insightful report by Bloomberg Business also explained how, ‘[Raul’s son-in-law, General Rodriguez] is the gatekeeper for most foreign investors, requiring them to do business with his organization if they wish to set up shop on the island…If and when the U.S. finally removes its half-century embargo on Cuba, it will be this man who decides which investors get the best deals.’ In other words, all of the talking points about how lifting the embargo and tourism restrictions would somehow benefit the Cuban people are empty and misleading rhetoric. “In addition, internet "connectivity ranking" has dropped. The International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Measuring the Information Society Report for 2015, the most reliable source of data and analysis on global access to information and communication. ITU has dropped Cuba’s ranking to 129 from 119. The island fares much worse than some of the world’s most infamous suppressors, including Syria (117), Iran (91), China (82) and Venezuela (72). “In Cuba, religious freedom violations have increased. According to the London-based NGO, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, last year 2,000 churches were declared illegal and 100 were designated for demolition by the Castro regime. Altogether, CSW documented 2,300 separate violations of religious freedom in 2015 compared to 220 in 2014. “And, if that is not enough, Castro reneged on the release of political prisoners and visits by international monitors. Most of the 53 political prisoners released in the months prior and after Obama’s December 2014 announcement have since been re-arrested on multiple occasions. Five have been handed new long-term prison sentences. “Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch noted in its new 2016 report, ‘Cuba has yet to allow visits to the island by the International Committee of the Red Cross or by U.N. human rights monitors, as stipulated in the December 2014 agreement with the United States.’ These were the conditions that prompted Congress, over the course of our long history with Cuba, to pass successive laws to build on -- not detract from -- Executive Orders that created the embargo. “I stand with thousands of Cuba’s civil society leaders, dissidents, journalists, and everyday men and women who long for the day when the freedom we enjoy in our great country extends to theirs. As long as I have a voice, they will have an ally to speak truth to power against this dictatorship, and against any effort to legitimize it or reward it. “We must realize the nature of the Castro regime won’t be altered by capitulating on our demands for basic human and civil rights. If the United States is to give away its leverage, it should be in exchange for one thing, and one thing only, a true transition in Cuba. “And, as for the latest announcements from the Administration, I stand against any rollback of the statutory provisions that codified Cuba sanctions. We learned this week that the Administration has cleared the way for individual travel to Cuba outside the auspices of a group or organization. This is tourism, plain and simple. “We learned this week that the Administration has cleared the way for Cubans – athletes, artists, performers, and others – to earn salaries in the United States. Unfortunately, much if not all of those salaries will go back to the regime as they must pay the regime most of their earnings. “We learned that Americans may purchase Cuban origin products and services in third countries – the cigars, alcohol, and basic products produced by a system of slave labor that funnels proceeds to one place – the regime’s pockets. When it comes to banking and financial services, we will now permit the U.S. financial system to facilitate the flow of these and other proceeds directly to the regime. “The Administration will allow the Cuban government, which profits from the sale of intelligence, to export Cuban-origin software to the United States – never mind that the Cuban government aggressively monitors the internet activity of Cuban dissidents and sensors users on the island – and permit direct shipping by Cuban vessels. “These ‘significant amendments’ to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) – cornerstones of implementation of United States sanctions against the Castro regime -- announced on Tuesday create new opportunities for abuse of permitted travel. They authorize trade and commerce with Castro monopolies, and permit the regime to use United States dollars to conduct its business. “They are unilateral concessions, requiring no changes from the Castro regime to the political and economic system under which the Castros exploit the lives and labor of Cuban nationals. In meetings late last week, I warned officials at the Department of Treasury that these changes come up to the line and in some cases cross it with respect to statutory authority. “Their actions are inconsistent with existing statutes and incompatible with the intent of Congress as expressed through those statutes. I should know as I was one of the authors of the Libertad Act when I served in the House of Representatives. In my view, at the end of the day, this is a unilateral transfer of the little remaining leverage that the Administration hadn’t given away prior to this week’s announcement. “With these steps, I believe Commerce and Treasury have set the stage for legal action against the Administration. Congress has authorized categories of travel to Cuba, but none of the categories were tourism or commerce-for-commerce’s-sake with the regime. “The President has said that his Cuba policy ‘helps promote the people’s independence from Cuban authorities.’ But it does not. “And yet, this week, in what would seem to contravene the letter and spirit of U.S. law – the Administration will reportedly allow the regime to use U.S. dollars in international financial transactions and a U.S. hotel company to partner with a Cuban military conglomerate run by the Castro family. Let’s be clear, it’s not the Cuban people who are eager and willing to shuffle dollars through BNP Paribas, INB Group, and HSBC Bank. Only the regime is willing and eager to do so. “As for the reports that Starwood-Marriott is looking for arrangement with the regime – with the blessing of the Administration – it would be an agreement with a subsidiary of GAESA, the Cuban military conglomerate run by Raul Castro’s son-in-law, General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas. It would be an agreement to manage a hotel for the Cuban military. Among those considered is Havana’s swanky hotel Saratoga, which has been twice confiscated by the Castro regime – an agreement by which employees are hired by the regime’s state employment agency in violation of international labor laws. “So I ask – How does allowing U.S. companies to do business with the Castro regime – let alone the Castro family itself – ‘promote the Cuban people’s independence from the authorities,’ as the President has said? This breathes new life into the Castro’s repressive state systems. That new life means one thing – the repressive system will continue without changes. “M. President, next week, when we anticipate that we will see a photograph of the President of the United States laughing and shaking hands with the only dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere, I will be thinking of Berta Soler of the Ladies in White and her fellow human rights and democracy advocates, when she testified before Congress last year. She said in her testimony: ‘Our demands are quite concrete; freedom for political prisoners, recognition of civil society, the elimination of criminal dispositions that penalize freedom of expression and association and the right of the Cuban people to choose their future through free, multiparty elections.’ “Those are the words of freedom. That is the legacy we should work toward until the Cuban people are finally free.”
  • Iran
    Next Steps for U.S.-Iran Relations
    Play
    Experts discuss U.S.-Iran relations in the aftermath of Iran's February parliamentary elections and as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program begins to come into effect.
  • India
    Economic Relations With India
    In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Alyssa Ayres recapped the trajectory of U.S.-India economic ties over the past decade and a half, and proposed ways to take the relationship forward. She recommended that the United States elevate its support for India’s economic growth and its reform process to the highest bilateral priority, work more comprehensively to integrate India in global economic institutions, and prepare the next American generation for a more prominent India in world affairs by redressing the comparative lack of attention and underinvestment in the study of India in U.S. higher education.   Takeaways: To elevate support for India’s economic growth to the highest bilateral priority for the U.S. agenda with India, the United States should play a leadership role in helping India gain membership in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum; promote high-level discussion of bilateral sectoral agreements; complete a bilateral investment treaty; define a pathway to a free trade agreement or regional equivalent; create initiatives responsive to Indian domestic reform needs; and continue to emphasize defense trade. The United States should work more comprehensively to integrate India in global economic institutions, including APEC, as well as other economic institutions in which India holds “key partner” status such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency. As a matter of American economic preparedness in a world in which India plays a more prominent role, the U.S. government should review federal funding incentives to encourage study abroad in India and study of Indian languages. This includes review of the ongoing Higher Education Act incentives, as well as the consideration of alternative initiatives and mechanisms. At present India/South Asia is funded below almost every other world region, and American students do not place a high priority on Indian language study or study abroad in India.
  • United States
    Guest Post: Clinton vs. Trump on Defeating the Islamic State
    Tina Huang is an intern in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. The rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State will be a leading foreign policy issue for the incoming administration. Thus, it is crucial to understand the proposed policies of the candidates. The current results of the primary elections indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and businessman Donald Trump will likely win their party’s nominations. Though both candidates use strikingly similar rhetoric to describe how to counter the Islamic State, a close analysis of the details they each have provided exposes starkly different approaches. First, Clinton and Trump have both stated that they would disrupt the Islamic State’s Internet access and social media presence. During a Republican debate, Trump said, “I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don’t want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our Internet.” Similarly, Clinton expressed that her administration would “deny them virtual territory.” The two candidates agree that, to do this, private companies should play a role. Clinton has urged Silicon Valley to “disrupt” the Islamic State by blocking or removing militant websites, videos, and encrypted communication. Trump, more vaguely, has claimed, “we have to get them [Silicon Valley] engaged.” However, other details the candidates have proposed for limiting the group’s online presence differ. Clinton has focused on attacking specific online infrastructure that the Islamic State utilizes to disseminate propaganda and communicate, whereas Trump has suggested he would close undefined “areas” of the Internet where the group is known to operate. He has not expanded on where those “areas” are, which therefore could be interpreted as cutting off specific geographical areas in the Middle East or blocking part of the Internet worldwide. Second, Clinton and Trump both believe that severing funding to the Islamic State is vital to defeating the group. Currently, the Islamic State brings in about $500 million a year from oil revenue, which makes up nearly 38 percent of its annual income. The group’s remaining profits stem from kidnapping ransoms, anonymous donations from governments and individuals, agricultural trade, and taxation. If elected, Trump has claimed he will “take away their wealth…take away the oil…I’d bomb the hell out of that oil field.” Contrastingly, Clinton has argued, “we have to go after nodes that facilitate illicit trade and transaction,” urging the UN Security Council to “update its terrorism sanctions” and “place more obligations on countries to police their own banks.” She directs responsibility toward governments and international organizations to take action that would prevent funds from reaching the Islamic State; whether states will take this initiative is speculative. Lastly, both candidates have expressed support for U.S.-led coalition airstrikes and ground troops to counter the Islamic State, but they differ on the specifics. Trump has advocated employing airstrikes to destroy oil fields, as previously mentioned. During a campaign speech in Iowa, he stated, “I would just bomb those suckers…I’d blow up the pipes…I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.” Though he suggested he would target the families of terrorists—a statement he later disputed—he did not clarify whether he would use airstrikes for this purpose. Rather, Trump has claimed, “I don’t like talking so specific….I want to be unpredictable.” Clinton, on the other hand, has proposed a three stage counterterrorism campaign that, in addition to targeting the group’s finances and online presence, aims to strip its control over territories in Syria and Iraq by executing a “more effective coalition air campaign, with more allies’ planes, more strikes, and a broader target set.” Looking to their proposals for ground troops, when Trump has been asked if he would send troops to the Middle East, he has provided an ambiguous response such as “I would do whatever you have to do” or “...you’ll need some ground troops.” Trump has said that their purpose would be "to protect the oil," but has not elaborated. Clinton has delineated her plan to take back territory and asserted that “airstrikes will have to be combined with ground forces.” She insisted that Congress should approve the deployment of U.S. special forces, not exceeding one hundred thousand soldiers. Clinton has gone further to explain what these groups should do once they are deployed: “We need to lay the foundation for a second Sunni Awakening” by providing training and support for Sunnis within the region. Clinton and Trump both agree that defeating the Islamic State will require precluding the group’s exploitation of the Internet, hindering its funding, leading an air coalition, and deploying ground troops. However, how they would each go about this and for what purpose differs. Clinton is firm in her position that defeating the Islamic State requires destruction, not containment, and has developed a thorough campaign to reinforce her stance. While Trump has yet to buttress his strategy with details, he should take the opportunity to expand on the specifics of his plan as the primaries continue and, potentially, during the general election debates. If Trump and Clinton compete in the general election, comparing and understanding their strategies for countering the Islamic State is imperative to ensuring the greatest security for the United States during the next administration.
  • Japan
    Remembering Tohoku
    Ayumi Teraoka is research associate for Japan studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Many people across Japan observed a moment of silence at 2:46 P.M. on March 11, 2016—five years after the fourth biggest earthquake in history struck Japan’s Northeast, bringing about the “triple disaster” that included an earthquake, a tsunami, and the nuclear plant meltdown in Fukushima. The government-sponsored memorial ceremony in Tokyo was attended by Emperor Akihito, Empress Michiko, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the chairmen of both Houses of the Parliament, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, and families of the victims. Emperor Akihito and Prime Minister Abe both stressed the importance of passing the lessons of the tragedy to future Japanese generations and the international community. The day has also become a moment for the Japanese to reflect upon the international support Japan has received in response to the devastating disaster. In particular, the United States has stood side-by-side with Japan, providing significant military and civilian support for disaster response and the reconstruction of the Tohoku region. Commander of U.S. Forces, Japan Lieutenant General John Dolan, released a statement today saying that, “the unprecedented U.S. and Japanese recovery operation was carried out in the spirit of friendship that animates our alliance.” Furthermore, American donations totaled $746.1 million, making the United States the largest donor. The Embassy of Japan in the United States also released a video to thank the United States for its support. It is also important to note, however, that reconstruction of the devastated region is far from finished. On the fifth anniversary of the tragedy, Sheila Smith, CFR senior fellow for Japan studies, provided her analysis on the developments and implications of the triple disaster. Read here
  • Middle East and North Africa
    The President Gratuitously Damages American Alliances
    American alliances are not in good shape these days, with many countries worrying that President Obama does not value the alliances, their own role in those alliances, or the commitments our alliances imply to the safety of states that are to some degree dependent on the United States. It is therefore mysterious why the president decided to inflict further damage in interviews with The Atlantic.  One can think easily of two famous moments when such comments, and those not even by a president, had dire effects. In January 1950, Secretary of State Acheson spoke about the American defense perimeter in Asia, saying our "defensive perimeter runs along the Aleutians to Japan and then goes to the Ryukyus....The defensive perimeter runs from the Ryukyus to the Philippine Islands." Excluded here was Korea, and many analysts have said this speech contributed to the decision by the North to invade South Korea several months later. On July 25, 1990, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq met with Saddam Hussein and said "We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960′s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." Eight days later Saddam invaded Kuwait. Words have consequences. In these recent interviews, the president undermined trans-Atlantic relations and relations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies. Take his comment on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do. This is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. Well, it is actually an example of saying something off the cuff that can only encourage further Russian aggression and demoralize Ukrainians fighting for their country. Why say it, even if you think it? Take this description of Mr. Obama’s words from The New York Times: The Saudis, Mr. Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg, the [Atlantic] magazine’s national correspondent, “need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace.” Reflexively backing them against Iran, the president said, “would mean that we have to start coming in and using our military power to settle scores. And that would be in the interest neither of the United States nor of the Middle East.” Saudi Arabia has been an American ally since 1945, and now faces an aggressive Iran with troops and proxies all over the Arab world (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen) and with a nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. Other American allies border it and share its fears: Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain (where the Fifth Fleet is located), and the United Arab Emirates. What does the president have to say to calm their fears? Nothing. Instead he builds them, and suggests that he looks upon growing Iranian power with indifference--or even with approval. To those comments he added criticisms of the United Kingdom and France, as if he were concerned lest any key allies be left out. It’s worth mentioning as well this line from The Times: The portrait that emerges from the interviews is of a president openly contemptuous of Washington’s foreign-policy establishment, which he said was obsessed with preserving presidential credibility, even at the cost of blundering into ill-advised military adventures. As to credibility, those advisers who told him he was sacrificing his when--for example--he failed to enforce his red line on Syria were right. Presidential credibility can never be the goal of American foreign policy, but it is an important asset. Foreign leaders, whether hostile or friendly, must be able to trust that when the president says something, he means it and will stick to it. Allies rely on the United States, but "the United States" is an abstraction. In fact they rely on the words of the top officials with whom they interact; for them, in this sense the president IS the United States. Mr. Obama’s deprecation of presidential credibility is alarming for Americans, and dangerous for our friends. Mr. Obama seems "openly contemptuous" of anyone who disagrees with him, and has for seven years. The problem in his eyes is not that there are tough policy questions, and difficult decisions, and several sides to hard questions; nope, there is his view and there are the ignorant, unintelligent views of those who differ, of whom he is indeed "openly contemptuous." Those who think the tone of American politics is ugly because participants disrespect each other might consider how much of that tone originates with or is worsened by the president. In any event, his comments in this interview will not help the national security interests of the United States. They will undermine the confidence of allies. It is anyone’s guess why felt that these thoughts should have been spoken now.         _________________________________________________________Note: Elliott Abrams is a member of the foreign policy advisory group for Sen. Marco Rubio
  • United States
    Is Myanmar the Model for Cuba’s Reforms?
    Over the past six months, the Obama White House has rapidly bolstered diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba. Last month, Washington and Havana signed a deal restoring commercial flights between the two countries for first time in over fifty years; the deal, one of many agreements recently reached, came at the same time as Washington allowed a U.S. factory to set up in Cuba. The outreach to the island is an attempt, according to deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, to ensure that the U.S.-Cuba rapprochement is nearly irreversible by the time that Obama leaves office. To further cement ties, Obama will visit Cuba later this month—making him the first U.S. president to do so since Calvin Coolidge. Recently, White House officials also have begun mentioning a more specific template for this bilateral rapprochement, and for how Cuba might open up its economy and its political system: Myanmar. Since the first days of Obama’s first term, administration officials placed a priority on restoring closer U.S. ties with Myanmar. Myanmar was, at the time, isolated from the United States and most other democracies by decades of junta rule, destructive economic policies, and sanctions imposed after massive rights abuses by Myanmar’s leaders. The Obama administration believed that sanctions had failed to change the course of Myanmar politics, and that America’s inattention to the Southeast Asian country was making Myanmar a virtual Chinese client state. To reverse U.S. policy toward Myanmar, over the past seven years, the White House has indeed relaxed sanctions on the country, appointed ambassadorial level representation to Myanmar (the United States had an embassy in Myanmar, but it had been led by a charge d’affaires), launched new aid programs in Myanmar, and even considered restoring military ties down the road. The Obama administration sees Myanmar as a success story, and one in which the United States played a major role in the transition. Now, it apparently sees U.S.-Myanmar relations as a model as well. As Hillary Clinton notes in her memoir Hard Choices, the administration believes that it played a central role in pushing the Myanmar generals to move toward elections, and that the rapprochement with Myanmar was an example of U.S. diplomacy and soft power at its finest. A recent Washington Post article effectively summarized administration views on U.S.-Myanmar relations and how they could be a model for relations with Cuba. “There are important similarities” between the White House’s approach to Cuba and its approach toward Myanmar, the Post reported. U.S. deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes told the Post that in both cases the White House was breaking from years of isolating these nations, and that the administration would set the foundations for a new relationship to be built over generations. For more on how the U.S.-Myanmar relationship could---or could not---be a model for ties with Cuba, read my new article on World Politics Review.
  • United States
    Puerto Rico's Debt Crisis
    Play
    Experts discuss the factors that led to Puerto Rico’s crisis, the options for restructuring its more than $70 billion debt, and solutions for helping fix the island’s economy.